Yes- another day, another positive “All Yesterdays” book review

If you want to see a new/reinvigorated, exciting direction that palaeoart is headed, check out the All Yesterdays book by Conway, Kosemen and Naish. This review is fully cognizant that I’m late to the party of hailing this book as part of a palaeoart renaissance. I confess I haven’t read any of the many reviews of this book; I just know it is highly regarded and popular, from excitement on social media sites I frequent. So if my review covers ground others have too, so be it; it’s purely my own thoughts but I expect that mine fall in line with many others’. I’m reviewing the book on this blog because I love the interface between science and art (which is very important in anatomy), and because anatomy, and how one infers it when it is unknown, is the fundamental theme of the book.

You can buy All Yesterdaysfor around £18 (ASIDE: oddly, used copies (“May not include CD, access code, or DJ”– ???) are around £42 on the same site; perhaps those are artist-signed??? I have no idea!). It is a good deal at that price. While you’re at it, get “Dinosaur Art: The World’s Best Paleoart” by White et al. (including Conway) for a similar price. My review will return to some comparisons between these two books, released just a few months apart.

All Yesterdays is about not only how we reconstruct dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals, but also about thinking outside-the-box in the ways we reconstruct them and thereby bucking some recent clichés and tropes. Some of those outside-the-box ideas might seem ludicrous, and some probably are. But one of the main points of All Yesterdays is that there is plenty about extinct animals, and even living animals, that we don’t know, even though the field of paleoart has matured into greater scientific rigor than in the days of Knight, Zallinger and others (1920s-1950s). There is a focus on uncertainties about integument (e.g. feathering, spines, colour/patterning, body contours) and behaviour (e.g. avoiding stereotypes like perpetually aggressive predators and frightened prey animals– amen to that!). And the capstone of the book, which in some ways I loved the most, is turning the issue on its head and pretending that we only had skeletons of extant animals, then proceeding to reconstruct those animals (elephants, whales, horses and swans stand out prominently in this section; some of these are shown below). I wish more scientists in my general area would practice this; e.g. validation of a methodology used to reconstruct extinct animals in science.

The ‘speculative zoology’ of All Yesterdays deserves favourable comparison to one of my favourite science-art books, 1981’s After Man by Dougal Dixon. I fell so in love with that book as a 10-year-old that I wouldn’t let my parents return it to the library and I made them pay the hefty lost-book-fee (yes, I was a little bastard!). I still have it, too. (Sorry, Sequoya Branch Public Library of Madison, WI!) Likewise, the whimsy of the Rhinogrades is evoked by this work, and of course Tetrapod Zoology blog readers will be no strangers to it, either.

The book begins with a clear, succinct (7 page) summary of the history and science of reconstructing animals, with a focus on paleoart’s approach rather than science’s. I would have found it interesting (but space constraints presumably precluded) to feature more of the interface/parallels with scientists at the same time, such as the careful reconstructions of musculature in A.S. Romer’s masterful work in the 1920s (e.g. below), or later efforts by palaeontologists like Alick Walker and Walter Coombs. Many of these luminaries sought not to reconstruct animals for artistic purposes, but for almost purely scientific ones: to understand what skeletal anatomy meant in terms of broader biology (e.g. comparative anatomy) and phylogeny (e.g. origin of birds or archosaur evolution). The quality of their own artistic representations as well as scientific interpretations varied a lot. Indeed, sometimes the choice of model organisms (crocodile for Romer; lizard for Walker; birds in the post-1960’s) reveals much about the author’s preconceptions about phylogeny, marshalled towards a favoured hypothesis (e.g. a crocodile origin of birds for Walker; or an avian origin amongst dinosaurs for Bakker, Paul and others), rather than a circumspect assessment of all relevant evidence.

But eventually the “model organism” approach to reconstructing extinct animals gave way to the extant phylogenetic bracket; very popular today; which itself is an adaptation of the outgroup method for polarity assessment in phylogenetic systematics (cladistics). I am sure many modern paleoartists explicitly consider the “EPB” in their reconstructions, although this leaves many ambiguities (e.g. integument of crocodiles and birds being totally different!) that they must overcome, whereas scientists might just give up. This interface of art and science is part of what make palaeontology so enjoyable.

The EPB mindset has been a big step forward for evolutionary morphology and palaeontology, but still some of the greatest questions (e.g. what were the actual sizes, colour patterns, or behaviours of extinct animals? How did novelties arise and which novelties did dinosaurs have that extant relatives lack?) are left ambiguous by the EPB. This is because either the EPB itself is ambiguous (crocodiles or other taxa do one thing; birds do something altogether different), or because features leave no osteological correlates (e.g. muscle/tendon/ligament scars) on fossils that can be compared with the EPB. This quandary leads to the fun side of this book– filling in the huge gaps left by both basic anatomical interpretation and the restrictions imposed by the EPB, and then playing with the frontiers of anatomical, behavioural and ecological reconstruction, using informed speculation.

The extant phylogenetic bracket for archosaurs.

In addition to the startling, bizarre “All Todays” reconstructions at the end of the book, the highlights for me were the camouflaged Majungasaurus and plesiosaur, the “feathered mountain” (below) of a therizinosaur (can anyone illustrate a plausible therizinosaur and make it normal and boring? I wager not!) and the neck-swinging elasmosaurs engaged in “honest signalling” of their fitness. Many of the illustrations riff on notions popular in the modern palaeo-zeitgeist (and subject of many conversations at conferences, or even publications), such as evidence for the spiny integument of some ornithischians, fat ornithopods, Microraptor of somewhat-known-colouration, and so on. But plenty of other images riff on a “well why not?” theme, challenging the viewer to consider that extinct animals could have many surprises left in store for us with future discoveries, or else plausible features that we’ll never know of but might seem laughable or unfashionable to illustrate now. Each image has text explaining the logic behind it- this is not just a montage of pictures. This is a thinking person’s book- you should buy it for rumination, to challenge your preconceptions, not to have a flashy coffee table book. It’s not eye candy — it’s more like brain jerky.

I think this is a bold, fun (re)new(ed) direction for palaeoart. There’s always a place for rigorous, conservatively evidence-based, by-comparison-almost-uncreative scientific illustration of extinct organisms. The World’s Best Paleoart presents loads of this, often in vividly colourful, photo-realistic, lavish, glossy detail, whereas the approach in All Yesterdays tends toward a more soft, matte, informal style including sketches or abstractions, toning down the serious and intense (even cluttered?) approach that can characterize modern palaeoart, including The World’s Best Paleoart. Sometimes those reconstructing life of the past (scientists included!) may emphasize that detailed realism too much and lose some of the joyful playfulness that palaeoart can revel in, at its best, most inspirational or thought-provoking. The former style might be considered the more “safe” or technical practice; the latter more risky or unconstrained.

I’m not casting negative judgement on either style; both are absolutely wonderful — and valuable. I love both books! I’m glad we’re in a new age where the fun is waltzing back into palaeoart, that’s all. All Yesterdays doesn’t just waltz, either. It pounces into your field of view, wiggles its rainbow-coloured, mandrill-esque ankylosaurid bottom at you with a cheeky grin, and proceeds to make you smirk, be bemused, and even gasp at its adventurousness in rapid succession as you turn its pages. At 100 pages it doesn’t overstay its welcome either– that kaleidoscopic thyreophoran rump cartwheels off into the sunset at an opportune moment.

If All Yesterdays makes someone uncomfortable with its swashbucklerish daring, they’re probably taking palaeontology way too seriously– and maybe missing not only some good fun, but also some potential truths. Dogma is a terrible thing, and All Yesterdays slaughters it with delightful relish. Bring on the next installment! If you have All Yesterdays too, what’s your favourite part? Or if you don’t have it, I’d be happy to answer queries in the Comments.

The therizinosaur image is my absolute favorite. The thing I love about it is that it just evokes the feelings of quietly watching real living animals go about their business. . .for some reason, the scene conjures up all sorts of sights and sounds and smells for me (undoubtedly influenced by my own wildlife viewing experiences). I can smell the damp of a woodland, and hear the quiet munching of vegetation and rustling of branches as the animals pull at the trees. This probably puts me well over the line into dinosaur fanboy, but I will unashamedly admit as much. I can’t recall another piece of paleontological art that generated such a vivid experience! That’s darned good art, paleontological or not.

Count me as another who found Conway’s therizinosaurs in the woods to be eerily evocative including smells and sounds. I liked the buttress being deflected by the other tree too – it doesn’t detract from the main subject but it’s there making the whole scene “real”.

John, this article doesn’t show at the top of the main/home page for me (I accessed it via the Recent Posts box). latest I see is Chilly 1st Birthday. I’ve tried different browsers and devices and get the same so it’s not a local caching issue.

Great review, great thoughts: as I said on twitter, I’m pleased that you totally get where we’re coming from. I wanted to comment on the notable absence of commentary on the work of Romer, Walker and so on: I opted not to go down this route because I was afraid that I’d end up having to be comprehensive in my coverage. In other words, talking about Romer, Walker and Coombs is the thin end of the wedge: think about all of the technical papers where people have provided useful or even indispensable information on the soft-tissue anatomy of extinct animals. This might seem lame, but I hope it explains what is, I agree, an obvious apparent oversight. Anyway, thanks again for the coverage.

Interesting that almost all actual palaeontologists who’ve expressed a position on this book think it’s great. What negativity I’ve seen has all been from people on the fringes. Not sure what to make of that.

I wonder if this aspect is based on the fact that these days, more and more paleo-field scientists (not all paleontologists) and those who work closely with them/have some anatomical understanding are themselves becoming more and more aware of biological variety. The book seeks a methodological structure behind reconstruction — a “why,” not merely a “how.”

As I noted on Twitter, I think the book is great. I have some issues with it, and some issues raised in debate with the authors on other matters (*cough* cheeks in ornithischians *cough*) but on the whole I really like the more systematic approach. But then, I think I’m one of those guys Mike mentions, “on the inside” as it were. I don’t need convincing; I’m trying to work from methodology, and trying to ground speculation on oral structures which have previously been assumed or ignored (*coughing again*).

I’ve not read the book yet, but I already know — at least from seeing what’s there and heard the reviews — that it will help describe that groundwork we all hope NEW artists use.

I do have ONE itsy problem with it, however: There is a lot of talk, mostly when it comes to praising the authors, that the book incites a movement. Yes, there was a hefty outpouring of support from many paleoartists, and there’s the two contests to promote the diversity of ideas. Many submissions I saw were (to be kind) outlandish, others downright ridiculous. Few of them were truly grounded, and those few were done by truly expert artists (I will not name names, but I am sure you guys know) with a grounding in paleontology, ornithology, and zoology in general. [Note: I do not include myself, and I’ve not submitted to the main contest started by Memo, merely the LiTC “style” contest; my submission is poor.]

But my understanding, having been a part of it, is that the movement started a decade ago, and was largely a response to Greg Paul’s well-known work; but also coincided with work by others, including Weishampel and Witmer, to reconstruct the facial anatomy of various animals. “All Yesterdays” is an extension of this research, and the art required to support it, including what we saw in Jurassic Park: Big lipped dinosaurs?!

The best thing, in my opinion, to come from “All Yesterdays,” and one which I hope REALLY catches on, is the push away from skeletonizing/shrink-wrapping bodies. Man, that’s hideous!

Seems like the problem with the “movement” claim is not at all with the book itself, which makes no such claim, but with anyone making that claim, and how they make the claim. It’s not a new movement per se, but could be seen as a re-invigoration of a movement that goes back to ???? (at least Dixon’s After Man, rhinogrades, etc; perhaps further into medieval fantasy and more if you want to push it).

If the movement to correctly illustrate animals, based on grounding in anatomy and observation with constraint, conservativism without wild variation (such as Owen’s Megalosaurus) goes back further, and if we lost it and “All Yesterdays” suggests a reinvigoration, what about the work of Bakker? I understand Bakker has been pretty instrumental in showing ancient life was living breathing loving critters; Doug Henderson shows a realism with dynamic expression often missing in paleo-art but present in much wild-life art. Wouldn’t they, and Greg Paul following Bakker, be the re-invigoration? The CURRENT trend seems to respond to that, but it builds on things Paul, Bakker, and others had thought important, illustrated widely. Indeed, the former had produced extensive works discussing THIS VERY SUBJECT.

I’d like to note that I am not trying to downgrade the value of this current book. My concern is what has arisen from commentary on the book, and it is an impression that does not seem to be receiving much correction. My only concern is knowing the historical and factual context this book provides. My problem with the book doesn’t stem from anything I am implying it says, merely that it is involved in this sense that IT is doing something no one has done before.

Not sure where this will show up in the indented reply stack, but in answer to Jaime’s question, “Wouldn’t they, and Greg Paul following Bakker, be the re-invigoration?” Darren discussed this pretty extensively in his launch talk, which in YouTube here, and also in the front of the book itself.

The problem with designating anything, anywhere, ever, as a movement is that people can always point to forebears who were doing similar things, and to people working now who might be in or out depending on definitions. So it’s easy to get bogged down in details that don’t really clarify things at all. When I’ve referred to the “All Yesterdays movement” on SV-POW!, I just mean that there is some momentum in paleoart right now to be a little bit more speculative AND a little more cognizant of the unknowns and the space those unknowns create for what John nicely describes as playfulness. Conway, Koseman, and Naish are hardly the only people doing this, BUT All Yesterdays is the most visible and most deliberate signal of that momentum, in that the creators don’t just participate in that mode of restoration, they advocate for it. So, although some people who I think are part of this momentum don’t like the expression “All Yesterdays movement” at all, I still think it’s a useful shorthand (and nothing more–if we get down to arguing about who is or isn’t part of the movement, we’ve missed the point).

[…] far less than the statistical methods that we employed– because we add a lot of flesh (like real animals have!) outside of the skeleton in our method, the precise morphology of the skeleton doesn’t […]